To qualify as a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis, plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait. Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The court therefore declines to find that plaintiffs constitute a suspect class.
Can you say an additional assumption that the judge makes is that they are assuming plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that another characteristic is an immutable characteristic? Other than homosexuality?
My breakdown (Long winded, mainly for my self but feel free to read if it helps)
Suspect class is the sufficient condition here, and plaintiffs making a showing is the necessary condition.
Membership in the suspect class is sufficient to be part of the plaintiffs making a showing class, but it is not necessary as there are other ways that one can make a showing that the characteristic's defining the class is an immutable trait.
The reverse of this that helps me further understand is that: Membership in plaintiffs making a showing is necessary to be part of the suspect class (sufficient condition), but it is not good enough (sufficient) because there could be more things you need to check in order for you to get into that smaller bubble of the suspect class.
The second sentence is where we see the contrapositive of "X is not a member of set B". This is shown by the sentence saying "Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic". Basically to be part of B we need to show that characteristic's defining the class are immutable, and then the second sentence say "well, you actually haven't shown any characteristic defining the class (homosexuality I think) as an immutable.
This is finally ties back into the final sentence in the form of "If not B (Superset) than not a member of A (Subset). How is this shown? The court basically said "oh you don't have membership in set B (the superset), so we cant give you membership into set A (The subset)
Membership in set B being characteristics to define the class as immutable, and membership in set A being to qualify as a suspect class
I'm not understanding how they mapped it out SC->I because I started with I -> SC? Can someone explain how this was done. I saw another comment about it but still did not understand.
i love that he asked a bonus question - whether there was any assumption. as soon as i read that, i went back to the stimulus and found the assumption. nice!
If sufficient conditions occur, necessary must occur. (To be a cat, you must be a mammal)
If a Necessary condition occurs, it doesn't mean sufficient occurred (it may or may not have occured). "You can be a mammal (NC) but not be a cat. (SC)"
AND if necessary doesn't occur, Sufficient CAN'T occur. "If you aren't a mammal, how can you be a cat?"
I think I understood the concept of creating the lawgic equation, but I did use different characters instead of "SC" and "i". I used "EPA" for equal protection analysis and had it as my superset, set b, and I used "IT" for immutable trait and had it as my subset, set a. I put H for homosexuality and placed it outside of my superset. This was my equation.
IT---->EPA
H/EPA
_
H/IT
I might have been wrong, but I do think I understood what needed to be negated. The argument is saying if homosexuality is not a part of the equal protection analysis then it must not be an immutable trait. If I did something wrong, please reply and let me know what you think!!!!
So, in this case we can say that this argument is valid (conclusion follows logically from premises based on what we learned about contrapositive arguments) but it is on the weaker side because it relies on an assumption (unstated premise) to provide support to conclusion. In the beginning I was confused and thought that valid arguments had NO ROOM for assumptions but now I see that assumptions have nothing to do with validity/invalidity (which are determined by the structure of the argument) but rather with an argument's strength level.
For everyone who is having trouble with breaking down contrapositive arguments, I suggest getting a white board where you can break everything down and really work through the argument a couple words at a time. I broke it down on my board and found this example to actually be really helpful in exposing us to what our future careers will entail. lol!
I originally tried this without reading and got confused with the second one.
OG:
Sc -> I
Sc /h
Sc/i
7Sage:
sc - > i
h /i
h/sc
The last sentence of the prompt is saying that homosexuality does not equate to the suspect class. I put the plantiffs as the last one because it is still talking bout having this as not a trait. I am not sure where I went wrong on this diagram..#
0
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
82 comments
SC -> I
h/I
-----
h/SC
To qualify as a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis, plaintiffs must make a showing that the characteristic defining the class is an immutable trait. Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic. The court therefore declines to find that plaintiffs constitute a suspect class.
SC --> I
h/I
h/SC
Can you say an additional assumption that the judge makes is that they are assuming plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that another characteristic is an immutable characteristic? Other than homosexuality?
My breakdown (Long winded, mainly for my self but feel free to read if it helps)
Suspect class is the sufficient condition here, and plaintiffs making a showing is the necessary condition.
Membership in the suspect class is sufficient to be part of the plaintiffs making a showing class, but it is not necessary as there are other ways that one can make a showing that the characteristic's defining the class is an immutable trait.
The reverse of this that helps me further understand is that: Membership in plaintiffs making a showing is necessary to be part of the suspect class (sufficient condition), but it is not good enough (sufficient) because there could be more things you need to check in order for you to get into that smaller bubble of the suspect class.
The second sentence is where we see the contrapositive of "X is not a member of set B". This is shown by the sentence saying "Plaintiffs have not cited any authority to support the conclusion that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic". Basically to be part of B we need to show that characteristic's defining the class are immutable, and then the second sentence say "well, you actually haven't shown any characteristic defining the class (homosexuality I think) as an immutable.
This is finally ties back into the final sentence in the form of "If not B (Superset) than not a member of A (Subset). How is this shown? The court basically said "oh you don't have membership in set B (the superset), so we cant give you membership into set A (The subset)
Membership in set B being characteristics to define the class as immutable, and membership in set A being to qualify as a suspect class
yeah im cooked for sure
Ok I am so confused.
For some reason I did..
SC -> I
/h -> I
/I -> SC
how do you know not to do the arrows and to make it in exponent form?
Am I dissecting this correctly? :
Necessary Condition: I
Sufficient Condition: SC
So the Lawgic would be:
SC->I
hSC
-----
hI.
However, since the plaintiff didn't satisfy the necessary condition of 'I', the contrapositive would be...
/I-> /SC
h/I
----
h/SC.
I guess I'm getting hung up on the notation of the
SC-> I
h/I
----
h/SC.
Are you combining the two notations into one?
I didn’t like this example it was extremely confusing…
In order to be a rock climber, one must be an athlete. One is not an athlete, therefore one is not a rock climber.
QS --> SIT
They did not SIT.
/SIT --> /QS.
P/SIT.
Conclusion: /QS.
To get into Harvard, you must submit an application.
This doesn't mean if you submit an application, you'll get into Harvard.
Harvard Student -> Submitted Application
I'm not understanding how they mapped it out SC->I because I started with I -> SC? Can someone explain how this was done. I saw another comment about it but still did not understand.
What I did was:
I -> S;
!H^I
-----
!H^S
Where I = immutable trait; S = suspect class; H = homosexuality.
Can someone explain how I can get to the right answer?
I use the Speechify browser plug-in to read these lessons that don't have videos to me using Mr. Beast's voice. It's a trip.
Im a bit confused. shouldn't "I" represent immutable trait?
i love that he asked a bonus question - whether there was any assumption. as soon as i read that, i went back to the stimulus and found the assumption. nice!
I got it right! Drawing it out exactly as you have been demonstrating helped—consistency in form is key!
Does it matter if our member is the same? When I tried my go at this question this is how I did it
SC(suspect class) -> IT(immutable trait)
p(plaintiff)^IT
---------
p^/SC
Not sure if this is accurate but this was my setup. QSC (Qualify as suspect Class) CIT (classify as immutable trait). H (Homosexuality)
H /CIT
--------
H /QSC
So, since Homosexuality is not classified as an immutable trait, Homosexuality does not qualify as suspect class.
Think of it this way,
If A, then B.
What would be the contrapositive?
If not B, then not A.
Why?
Because the rule states,
If sufficient conditions occur, necessary must occur. (To be a cat, you must be a mammal)
If a Necessary condition occurs, it doesn't mean sufficient occurred (it may or may not have occured). "You can be a mammal (NC) but not be a cat. (SC)"
AND if necessary doesn't occur, Sufficient CAN'T occur. "If you aren't a mammal, how can you be a cat?"
Now apply that to the example.
"Must" introduces the necessary condition.
SO it becomes...
To Qualify ----> Show characteristic
What if you don't show characteristics?
THEN you don't qualify.
Therefore it becomes...
/Show Characteristic----> /Qualify
I think I understood the concept of creating the lawgic equation, but I did use different characters instead of "SC" and "i". I used "EPA" for equal protection analysis and had it as my superset, set b, and I used "IT" for immutable trait and had it as my subset, set a. I put H for homosexuality and placed it outside of my superset. This was my equation.
IT---->EPA
H/EPA
_
H/IT
I might have been wrong, but I do think I understood what needed to be negated. The argument is saying if homosexuality is not a part of the equal protection analysis then it must not be an immutable trait. If I did something wrong, please reply and let me know what you think!!!!
So, in this case we can say that this argument is valid (conclusion follows logically from premises based on what we learned about contrapositive arguments) but it is on the weaker side because it relies on an assumption (unstated premise) to provide support to conclusion. In the beginning I was confused and thought that valid arguments had NO ROOM for assumptions but now I see that assumptions have nothing to do with validity/invalidity (which are determined by the structure of the argument) but rather with an argument's strength level.
For everyone who is having trouble with breaking down contrapositive arguments, I suggest getting a white board where you can break everything down and really work through the argument a couple words at a time. I broke it down on my board and found this example to actually be really helpful in exposing us to what our future careers will entail. lol!
#I dont understand...
#feedback
I originally tried this without reading and got confused with the second one.
OG:
Sc -> I
Sc /h
Sc/i
7Sage:
sc - > i
h /i
h/sc
The last sentence of the prompt is saying that homosexuality does not equate to the suspect class. I put the plantiffs as the last one because it is still talking bout having this as not a trait. I am not sure where I went wrong on this diagram..#